learning-workshop_4_Collaboration

Edit 0 4 …

imGoats project: Learning and reflection workshop

Udaipur, India, 2-6 July 2012


Our lessons learnt about the collaboration between ILRI, NGOs and other parties



 BAIF (viz ILRI)
 CARE (viz ILRI)
 ILRI (viz BAIF and CARE)
Aha moments (annoying or interesting concrete examples of discovering how the other organization works)
  • This is a different project from traditional goat development projects (e.g. including capacity building, distribution of goats, minor support services)
  • It contains a new idea: IPs
  • Outcome mapping generates learning about learning and policy-making
  • OM is a new qualitative M&E methodology focusing on behavior change
  • Research: Data collection, analysis, documentation (lacking in Mozambique)
  • Lack of clarity in research activities (e.g. research on socio-cultural planning & communication )
  • Insufficient coordination between ILRI and CARE
  • BAIF/CARE are development-oriented. They are very knowledgedable about field reality. They are flexible to adapt to changing conditions e.g. 'How will the IP work?' HH survey --> Not all what ILRI wanted is achievable or logical. In India: alter order of questions
  • Standard approach of working based on past experience: e.g. de-worming, sharing paravet module after training was given, increase in amount of goats shouldn't be the only indicator of success
  • Different educational levels in 1 organization - we have to take this into account in day-to-day work.
  • M&E data collection: Done, but no analysis done.
  • BAIF is not 1 organization (Pune, Rajasthan, Jharkhand....)
What is positive about working together - which you could not achieve alone (1+1=3)
  • Exchange of ideas among partners (BAIF, CARE, ILRI) about new approach;
  • Replicable in other areas;
  • Sharing of experiences with participating countries
  • NAC formation is new concept to help policy making
  • Complementarity in research activities (ILRI) and development activities (CARE) and learning;
  • ?? and valuing goat sector in Mozambique
  • NGOs have a good knowledge about field reality
  • They have community relationships
  • They are good at converting research findings into practical applications in the field (e.g. info sheet for IP on baseline results)
  • Together we conduct more robust household/village surveys:
    • Removing some questions;
    • Changing some questions;
    • 45' <--> 4h
Where could the relation grow further and deeper (where is it not mature enough)?
  • Global base dynamic project
  • Strengthening the communication system with each other
  • Organizing the workshop in the participatory country
  • Improving planning (time and other resources required) at basic level;
  • Coordination meetings among supervisors (gestores?) to harmonize policies/strategies of each institution (lack of clarity in the first two meetings)
  • Flexibility from both sides required
  • Willingness to change by both organizations
  • Synchronizing institutional mechanisms to be taken into account during project planning (e.g. coordination committee with decision power)